An email with an attachment of nineteen-minute audio was sent to an alderwoman for the city of St. Louis by a person MW. The email had some offensive words and threat refrences. The alderwomen called the police after being threatened through the email. The person MW was convicted of harassment under the state criminal statute. To find: The constitutionality of conviction under the First Amendment.

Question

4-1 REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH. Michael Mayfield, the president of Mendo Mill and Lumber Company in California, received a “notice of a legal claim” from Edward Starski. This “claim” alleged that a stack of lumber fell on a customer as a result of a Mendo employee’s “incompetence.” The “notice” presented a settlement offer on the customer’s behalf in exchange for a release of liability for Mendo. In a follow-up phone conversation with Mayfield, Starski said that he was an attorney—which, in fact, he was not. Starski was arrested and charged with violating a state statute that prohibited the unlawful practice of law. He argued that “creating an illusion” that he was an attorney fell within the protection of his First Amendment right to free speech. Is Starski correct? Explain your answer. [The People v. Edward Robert Starski, 7 Cal.App.5th 215, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 (1 Dist. 2017)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 4, Problem 5BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: An email with an attachment of nineteen-minute audio was sent to an alderwoman for the city of St. Louis by a person MW. The email had some offensive words and threat refrences. The alderwomen called the police after being threatened through the email. The person MW was convicted of harassment under the state criminal statute.

To find:The constitutionality of conviction under the First Amendment.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

4-1 REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH. Michael Mayfield, the president of Mendo Mill and Lumber Company in California, received a “notice of a legal claim” from Edward Starski. This “claim” alleged that a stack of lumber fell on a customer as a result of a Mendo employee’s “incompetence.” The “notice” presented a settlement offer on the customer’s behalf in exchange for a release of liability for Mendo. In a follow-up phone conversation with Mayfield, Starski said that he was an attorney—which, in fact, he was not. Starski was arrested and charged with violating a state statute that prohibited the unlawful practice of law. He argued that “creating an illusion” that he was an attorney fell within the protection of his First Amendment right to free speech. Is Starski correct? Explain your answer. [The People v. Edward Robert Starski, 7 Cal.App.5th 215, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 (1 Dist. 2017)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)

What is the definition of "Freedom of Speech? Have we eroded the right to Freedom of Speech in this country by censoring and firing people for posting or saying things on-line? Why or why not? What if a person is an avid hunter of deer and posts pictures on his or her Facebook page of deer he or she has killed? Considering the laws of your state, if the employer sees that, hates hunting and finds the pictures offensive, can that employer legally terminate that person? Why or why not?

Please answer this very simple question displayed with the image above